Hacker News Reader

Comment by boneheadmed | Hacker News Reader

Evolution can be further classified into "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Evidence for microevolution is directly observable (e.g. bacteria adapting to changes of nutrients in their environment, viruses adapting to vaccines). However macroevolution has never been directly observed. It is extrapolated from considering what occurs after a multitude of generations of microevolution. An interesting new documentary examines this in more detail: http://evolutionvsgod.com/

View on HN

No, but we have found millions of fossils in the ground from different time periods, and it looks an awful lot like different species slowly changed over time (and occasionally branched off or went extinct). If this weren't the case, scientists wouldn't believe in macroevolution either.

The appearance of things does not make it so. Automobiles appear to be evolved from earlier forms. And they have in sense: in the minds of their creators. So too, animal and plant species appear to be directly related to other prior species populations. But the connection is only in the mind of the Creator.

Why then did the Creator seem to largely "start over" after large extinction events? Surely he didn't forget what he knew simply because an asteroid hit the Earth.

Now that you have put forward a theory, the proper thing to do is evaluate its usefulness. The most useful theories are easily falsifiable: it is easy to imagine scenarios in which they fail. For instance, if any of the planets followed a square orbit, Kepler's laws of planetary motion would be pretty much kaput. Under what situation would you consider it clear that our planet's species' evolution did not follow the mind of the Creator?

At this point, the molecular/genetic evidence for common descent is pretty unassailable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

Examining the Earth, stars including the sun, living organisms and all that there is in front of us, makes it plainly known that there is a Creator.

A large portion of the population would kindly disagree :-)

Again, bring your reproducible facts. You're speaking out of faith. The test of knowledge is the experiment (Feynman), and yes you can prove evolution through experiments.

The thing is - there ARE plenty of scientists who disagree; they are just shunned by the rest of the academic circle-jerk for not following the wagon. So you, as a potentially scientifically-literate individual, are the victim of journal bias. Evolution is a _theory_ that is heavily debated- the cambrian explosion is one such debate that specifically has evidence against what your comment is. Too lazy to read? Watch the docu "Darwin's Dilemma"

Yeah, those academics, especially the tenured ones, just hate to say anything out of line.

You emphasize _theory_ as if there was some alternative it could graduate to once it were "accepted". Scientific explanations of the world, no matter how widely accepted, are called theories.

Here is the response to that film by of a Paleontologist who has studied the Cambrian explosion for the past 45 years: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/a-paleob... (Apologies that his response makes me hesitant to take the time to watch it.)

Gravity is a _theory_.

Science isn't democracy, things are not true or untrue depending on how many people beliieve them. You can't vote gravity away, for example.

Journal bias circle-jerking can 'vote' science away. Watch this TED talk about how journal bias is destroying the SCIENCE of medicine (Doctors don't know about the Drugs They Prescribe): http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_kno...

A "documentary" about evolution by a televangelist. Give me a break.

Yes. Three evolutionary scientists are interviewed and are asked to give examples of directly observable evidence of macroevolution.

Have you observed god creating a new species?

God created everything in existence. We refuse to acknowledge it, because by doing so we have to come to terms with his moral law. This moral law is embedded in our conscience and becomes clear through an examination of the conscience. For example things like lying and stealing (which if we are honest most of us have done either or both at one time or another), become heavy burdens when examined in the light of our consciences. In denying God, we can deny our own conscience and then create our own morality.

Is this really the direction this website is headed? The NSA conspiracy stuff was bad enough.

You didn't answer the question.

Great claims require great evidence. Prove God existence. Show us reproducible facts of God existence.

Disclaimer: I'm a christian, but I know that God existence is just an assumption that I have made on faith, and it can't be verified nor disproved, because it isn't testable. It isn't scientific knowledge.

Ray Comfort is a well-known crackpot who uses deceptive tactics to push his b.s.

Evolution is a scientific theory; that means that

1. It's based on facts, like:

    1. Mutation, that you can see mutations everyday, from
       a microrganism to a whale.

    2. The natural selection, that can you also can see
       everyday.

2. Its predictions can be tested.

   1. For example with help of genetics.

3. It's falsifiable, that means you can try to build a test to refute the theory, but this test must be fact based.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory because you can't bring the facts. Show reproducible facts and then we can discuss.

What you call "microevolution" is simply adaptation. It has nothing to do with evolution (that you call "macroevolution"). Evolution is the logical outcome of random mutations over a long period of time:

1) Random mutations

2) Survival rate increases for some

3) Evolution

This is so simple and so beautiful at the same time. The only thing you can contest is the existence of random mutations. I think the incredible diversity in our own species is enough proof.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com